More Friedman feedback - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 10th, 2007, 10:28 AM   #1
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,288
iTrader: (38)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Default More Friedman feedback

Friedman of the NYTimes recently wrote an article in which he went after Toyota selling pickups and getting inline with Detroit against the CAFE increases. There have been a number of responses including the article below and today's autoextremist.com

In summary, the article points out that CAFE only targets cars, which is only 20% of the emissions problem. Further, it only affects new cars which is a fraction of a fraction of the cars on the roads. It also goes into problems such as people holding onto cars longer causing the results to take longer to be seen.

Michigan US-Rep Dingell has proposed an alternate to CAFE that is more realistic in helping the environment. It does three things:
1) Raises gas tax (puts pressure on consumers to reduce consumption)
2) Creates a carbon tax (turns targets to more than just cars)
3) Caps tax breaks on McMansions (targets monster 4200sq ft + homes)

In my opinion, until something like Dingell's plan is put in place; the enviro-folks are just blowing more hot air into the environment.

Quote:
Posturing Will Not Save the Planet
Financial Times

By Clive Crook (Commentary)

Oct. 9, 2007

The website of the Sierra Club, the environmental group, says that "the biggest single step" America can take to reduce global warming and save consumers tens of billions of dollars is to adopt a stricter corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standard. Legislation that would force carmakers to sell more fuel-efficient cars is being debated again on Capitol Hill. A lot of people think the Sierra Club is right.

Last week Thomas Friedman, the trope-injected mega pundit of The New York Times, assailed the country's big three carmakers for resisting. He especially deplored their allies, Toyota green Toyota, for shame and the congressional delegation from Michigan, led by John Dingell.

In opposing a strict new rule, they are helping Detroit to "commit suicide". America's car industry got into trouble in the first place only because of its reluctance to be made to innovate, Mr. Friedman explains. Washington offers to compel it to make the cars people want (and hence become more profitable) and the idiotic manufacturers, cheered on by Toyota and Mr. Dingell, object. This is not pork-barrel politics, Mr. Friedman says, but "empty-barrel politics". Empty barrel, you see, as in a barrel of oil.

Far from being the biggest single step the U.S. can take on this issue, tighter Cafe standards might be the smallest single step apart that is, from doing nothing, and doing nothing at least has the virtue of being cheap. The endless posturing and counter-posturing over Cafe is Washington displacement activity in its purest form something to entertain the voters while failing to confront the actual problem. Support for a stricter Cafe rule is not a sign of being serious about climate change but just the opposite.

Greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks account for about 20 per cent of the U.S. total and Cafe rules affect only new vehicles. The initial effect of the rules is therefore on the margin of a margin. Yes, the impact would increase over time, but over time other things will change as well. If you make driving cheaper, people will drive more. Some of these savings will be spent on more cars or bigger cars or on sport utility vehicles. New cars get dearer relative to old cars because the regulation adds to costs, so people hang on to older, less efficient cars longer.

All these self-nullifying effects were seen in response to the existing Cafe standard. In the end, a tighter rule would make America burn less gasoline and emit less carbon dioxide than otherwise but not that much less.

Mr. Friedman would put this in terms you can understand. It is not small beer but low-carb beer, in a bigger glass, with a whisky chaser.

Cafe is a kind of tax, of course but a tax that is hidden. This is both its greatest political attraction and the clearest proof of its supporters' unseriousness. Put this mandate on the car companies, its advocates say, and they must deal with it: everybody else is better off. The companies themselves would gain, for heaven's sake, if only they had the wit to see it.

But if this is true, then the tight new standard is surely too loose. Why not tighten it more, and forget about phasing it in? Instant innovation for free. Before you know it the carmakers will be paying pensions again and we shall be getting 500 miles to the gallon. Why not run the whole economy this way?

It is bad that the underlying cost of Cafe is hidden, but worse that its effects are misdirected. The climate does not care whether greenhouse gases come from Hummers or Priuses, or from cooling your house or heating your swimming pool. We can set stringent fuel-economy rules for all energy-consuming activities, or we can recognize that the problem is carbon emissions, whether they come from tailpipes or power plants, and tax those instead. Make all carbon-based energy dearer and innovation on a wide front will follow, as it must if this problem is to be seriously addressed. If people want SUVs, fine so long as they pay the full costs of driving them and economize efficiently on other forms of carbon-releasing energy too.

If Americans chose to, of course, they could buy fuel-efficient cars already no innovation required. While nobody was looking, engineers in Europe and Japan were cunningly designing smaller cars. Yes, you just make them smaller! And drivers there snap them up because they have to pay two or three times as much for gasoline as Americans. Makes you think.

Switching to a lower-carbon economy has a cost. A high tax on gasoline makes it explicit, and is therefore dismissed as politically impossible. But the idea that the Cafe approach is costless, or that its costs will fall entirely on companies that had it coming anyway, is infantile. Given a choice between the ambitious and the fatuous, is it not better to press for the first?

And is the carbon-tax approach really so unrealistic?

Its chances are not improved by calling for inferior alternatives. A lot depends on who speaks up for the idea. Mr. Dingell, so criticized by Mr. Friedman and others on this issue, is trying to drum up support for a gas tax, a carbon tax and a cap on mortgage-interest tax relief for energy-guzzling houses. He has put draft legislation out for comment. Sure, Michigan's Mr. Dingell is in the pocket of America's car companies. That does not mean he is wrong.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 10th, 2007, 10:39 AM   #2
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,508
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Wow, I can't believe that you said such nice things about a
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2007, 10:53 AM   #3
Sol Goode
Obama Nation!
 
Sol Goode's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Curt1656 & Scooters love castle
Posts: 14,420
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Default

I stopped reading at Friedman.
__________________
#YOLO
#meballsohard
Sol Goode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2007, 11:46 AM   #4
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyJ View Post
Michigan US-Rep Dingell has proposed an alternate to CAFE that is more realistic in helping the environment. It does three things:
1) Raises gas tax (puts pressure on consumers to reduce consumption)
2) Creates a carbon tax (turns targets to more than just cars)
3) Caps tax breaks on McMansions (targets monster 4200sq ft + homes)

In my opinion, until something like Dingell's plan is put in place; the enviro-folks are just blowing more hot air into the environment.
A democrat raising taxes to fix a problem, that's new. /sarcasm


3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2007, 12:49 PM   #5
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,288
iTrader: (38)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Wow, I can't believe that you said such nice things about a
It is one of the few proposals that provides a wide ranging reduction in emissions, not just the easy target. I would like to see more about it, because I have not read more than a few short snippets from a few articles; but the spirit of his proposal seems to be more inline with enivironmental protection that targeting a subset of a subset of the problem.

What I like best about something like this is that it would affect a faux-environmentalist like Al Gore who asks us to do as he says and not as he does. He would ante up more for his large homes and excessive power consumption. Although, I'm sure he would just raise more money to maintain his lifestyle.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #6
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I agree in concept. Any tax on energy consumption should be on all forms of consumption rather than singling out certian usages and ignoring others.

I was thinking about this exact thing as I was driving home, noticing how many lights were on at various businesses and other buildings that were closed and vacant, not to mention all the lighted signs and other out door lighting left on all night. How much energy could be saved by turning some of that stuff off?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007, 02:38 AM   #7
gofastbobby
The guy Dale doesn't know
 
gofastbobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-10-07
Location: kalamazoo, mi
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

yes thats it, taxation is the answer.
gofastbobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007, 07:35 AM   #8
Stan
I got a gold chain
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Shelby Twp.
Posts: 15,732
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastbobby View Post
yes thats it, taxation is the answer.
I fixes everything, right?????
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007, 03:17 PM   #9
gofastbobby
The guy Dale doesn't know
 
gofastbobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-10-07
Location: kalamazoo, mi
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poop View Post
I fixes everything, right?????
yes, everything. if reagan hadnt been reelected aj halls dad would've pulled out.

it fixes everything.
gofastbobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2007, 03:20 PM   #10
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,843
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastbobby View Post
yes, everything. if reagan hadnt been reelected aj halls dad would've pulled out.
it fixes everything.

He spoke ill of Stan AND The Gipper. Ban him.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.25946 seconds with 51 queries